Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that carbon markets are 'false climate solutions' that allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through 'greenwashing' while causing harm to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It describes how carbon credits are generated from projects—including nature-based solutions and technological patches—and warns that these often lead to land grabbing, human rights violations, and the failure to actually reduce global emissions. The guide provides a framework for communities to identify predatory contracts, demand Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), and organize international solidarity to oppose the financialization of nature.

Natural Justice assesses South Africa's 2025 draft NDC, acknowledging progress in absolute emissions targets but warning that these are undermined by over-reliance on international conditionality and a lack of concrete implementation plans. The submission argues that the draft fails to meet the 'highest possible ambition' standard set by the ICJ, citing gaps in adaptation financing, the exclusion of natural disturbance emissions from accounting, and the absence of a clear fossil fuel phase-out schedule. It recommends integrating a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA), establishing a grant-based Loss and Damage facility funded partly by a tax on fossil fuel profits, and mandating Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all climate projects.

The report finds that the development of the 3,500-hectare Kawasan Industri Takalar (KITA) has been characterized by a severe lack of transparency and meaningful public participation, violating the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Residents of Desa Laikang, primarily seaweed farmers and fishers, report minimal official information and feel excluded from planning. The audit reveals a discrepancy between the company's public narrative of 'aquabusiness' and official documents that prioritize heavy industry, such as nickel downstreaming and electric vehicle assembly. Economic compensation is limited to low-value land payments (Rp 5,000 to Rp 11,000 per square meter) without livelihood protection. Furthermore, the project's ownership is concentrated within the family of a national political elite, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. The community has responded with formal protests and a village-level declaration of rejection, which the government has largely ignored.

Friends of the Earth US evaluates the Biden-Harris administration's 6-point framework to reduce US imports of deforestation-linked commodities. The analysis highlights the role of seven forest risk commodities—palm oil, beef, soy, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and corn—and argues that the US must adopt a holistic approach to combat illegal deforestation, which is often linked to human rights abuses and land grabbing. The organization recommends the creation of a public, transparent federal due diligence procedure independent of third-party certification, the use of Earth-observation data, and coordination with the European Union's Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). It also advocates for the passage of the federal FOREST Act and contributions to the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund.

The document provides a detailed analysis of the Critical Raw Materials Act (CRMA), which aims to secure the EU's supply of 17 strategic raw materials by 2030. It highlights the risks of fast-tracked permitting for 'Strategic Projects', the potential for 'greenwashing' through private certification schemes, and the challenges facing Indigenous Peoples and local communities in exercising their rights to participation and consent. The guide also examines the interaction between the CRMA and existing EU environmental directives, such as the Habitats and Birds Directives, and outlines the limited access to justice available to stakeholders.

The 2024 Scorecard by Insure Our Future argues that the global insurance industry is in a 'vicious cycle,' where it continues to underwrite fossil fuel expansion while simultaneously withdrawing coverage from communities facing the resulting climate risks. Using climate attribution science, the report estimates that over one-third of weather-related insured losses between 2002 and 2022—approximately $600 billion—are attributable to human-caused climate change. The analysis reveals a stark mismatch in underwriting, with renewable energy premiums representing less than 30% of the size of the fossil fuel insurance market in 2023. For 15 of the 28 major property and casualty insurers analyzed, estimated climate-attributable losses exceeded the premiums they collected from fossil fuel clients. While Generali is noted as the first insurer to restrict oil and gas expansion across the entire value chain, the report concludes that voluntary corporate leadership has stalled, necessitating urgent regulatory intervention to mandate 1.5°C-aligned transition plans and higher capital requirements for fossil fuel exposure.

The text asserts that the green energy transition is currently acting as a vehicle for "colonialismo verde" (green colonialism), where indigenous territories are exploited without proper consent. It highlights that failing to protect indigenous rights creates strategic risks for governments and industries, citing legal challenges to wind energy in Sweden and the negative impacts of the Belo Monte hydroelectric project in Brazil. The author calls on G20 leaders to move beyond the T20 Communiqué's recommendations by reforming land-use laws, addressing power asymmetries through dedicated funding, and recognizing indigenous leadership in defining a just transition.

The document asserts that the green transition is currently acting as a vehicle for "green colonialism," where Indigenous rights are sidelined for profit and development. It highlights a gap between policy ambitions and reality, citing the EU's Critical Raw Materials Act and the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam in Brazil as examples of failures to protect Indigenous communities. The author argues that upholding Indigenous rights is a pragmatic necessity, as Indigenous Peoples are increasingly using legal actions to stop or delay projects. In Sweden, 42 court cases involving Sámi herding communities are influencing wind energy developers to seek consent more proactively, while the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has tracked 60 global legal cases against renewable energy projects brought by Indigenous communities.

The document analyzes the role of voluntary sustainability standards in the mining sector, categorizing them by focus (supply chain, performance, and principle-based) and scope. It argues that while these standards cannot replace robust regulation, they can complement it by filling regulatory gaps, providing a foundation for new laws, or serving as proof of compliance. The briefing highlights a trend toward harmonization, exemplified by the Consolidated Mining Standard Initiative (CMSI), and emphasizes the importance of third-party certification and multistakeholder governance for credibility. It concludes with recommendations for governments to engage in standards development and align national regulations with emerging sustainability issues to attract investment.

The document argues that the well-being of forests and biodiversity depends on the recognition and enforcement of the collective rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs). It focuses on the role of Indigenous and Community-Conserved Territories and Areas (ICCAs) and Community Forest Management (CFM) as essential tools for stopping deforestation and protecting biodiversity. The brief outlines key rights—including self-determination, free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), land tenure, and gender justice—and provides specific policy recommendations to prevent the displacement of IPLCs by extractive industries or state-led conservation schemes.

The paper assesses how the EU's CSDDD may address gaps in Swedish national legislation regarding the human rights of Sámi reindeer herding communities affected by mining. While the CSDDD introduces mandatory due diligence and civil liability, the authors note it lacks explicit references to Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and relies on a risk-based approach that leaves significant room for corporate interpretation.

The report argues that the global push to triple renewable energy capacity must prioritize the quality of investments over quantity to avoid 'green extractivism'. It introduces three core criteria for public finance: driving a 100% renewable future by phasing out fossil fuels, ensuring democratic energy systems through grants and decentralization, and centering human rights and nature. The document criticizes multilateral development banks (MDBs) for continuing to fund fossil gas and relying on debt-creating loans rather than grants. Through case studies in India, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Indonesia, it contrasts the harms of large-scale, profit-driven projects with the benefits of community-led, small-scale renewable energy solutions.

The Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission (SEITC) is seeking urgent intervention from the IACHR to prevent the approval of the Eskay Creek Revitalization Project, a gold and silver mine in British Columbia. SEITC argues that Canada and B.C. have failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of the seven member Tribes whose traditional territories include the Unuk River watershed. The document highlights risks of toxic pollution from tailings dams and acid mine drainage, which could devastate salmon and eulachon (hooligan) populations essential for the Tribes' subsistence and culture. SEITC contends that B.C.'s current consultation process is deficient and discriminatory because it excludes Alaskan-based Tribes from the 'participating Indigenous nation' framework used for B.C.-based First Nations.

The document synthesizes international standards—including those from the IUCN, CBD, and FEBA—into a practical framework for nature-based solutions (NbS) for adaptation. It defines NbS for adaptation as actions that protect, restore, and manage ecosystems to strengthen the resilience of communities and ecosystems to climate change. The core of the brief is a set of eight good practices, which include conducting climate risk assessments, ensuring equitable distribution of benefits, prioritizing biodiversity health, and employing inclusive governance. Notably, the brief introduces a conflict-sensitive approach to minimize the risk of exacerbating tensions through adaptation actions.

The document reports a violent forced eviction of Ngäbe indigenous families in Bocas del Toro, Panama, on July 17, 2024, involving the burning of homes and killing of livestock by riot police. It details the detention of between 50 and 90 community members, including women and minors, and argues that these events are the result of a systemic failure by the Panamanian government to grant collective land titles to indigenous peoples in 'áreas anexas' (adjacent areas) outside of comarcas. CIEL links this vulnerability to broader regional pressures from tourism, real estate, and infrastructure projects, specifically mentioning the IFC-backed Panama Line IV transmission project.

The OvaHerero people of Kaokoland, semi-nomadic pastoralists in Namibia and Angola, developed a Biocultural Community Protocol (BCP) between March 2022 and June 2024. Supported by Natural Justice and International Rivers, the process involved six phases: securing community buy-in, capacity building, research across 34 villages and four museums, iterative community validation, translation into the OtjiHerero language, and official launch. The BCP serves as a tool to safeguard traditional knowledge against threats from climate change and infrastructure development, and to ensure free, prior, and informed consent for external parties engaging in research, tourism, or development on their territories.

The 2024 update study by Perspectives Climate Group finds that while CAR, Verra, and ACR have improved their grievance processes since 2023, significant shortcomings persist across all analysed VCM programmes. Key issues include limited accessibility, lack of independent review guardrails, and a general absence of detailed potential remedies. The report specifically highlights the case of the Amerindian Peoples’ Association (APA) in Guyana under the ART mechanism, which was dismissed on formal grounds, illustrating the risks of ad hoc procedural changes and biased reviewer appointments. The study concludes that most VCM mechanisms remain insufficient in providing a fair, predictable, and independent path to redress for affected stakeholders.

The document examines the structural exclusion of Inuit from Canada's federal climate policy and proposes a shift toward an 'Indigenous resurgence paradigm' to ensure equitable representation. It identifies barriers such as tokenistic engagement and the failure to differentiate between northern and southern regional needs. The study highlights existing frameworks, such as the National Inuit Climate Change Strategy and the Circumpolar Inuit Protocols for Equitable and Ethical Engagement, as essential guides for achieving Inuit-led climate justice.

The document examines the structural exclusion of Inuit people from Canada's federal climate policy framework, highlighting the failure to respect the right to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). It identifies key barriers, such as the lack of regional differentiation between Northern and Southern Canada and the tendency for government engagement to be symbolic rather than substantive. The study advocates for a 'paradigm of indigenous resurgence' to center Inuit knowledge, land-based relations, and inclusive community mobilization. It references the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami's National Inuit Climate Change Strategy and the Inuit Circumpolar Council's protocols as essential frameworks for ethical engagement and climate justice.

The report finds that most voluntary carbon market standards have inadequate or non-existent grievance mechanisms, leaving local communities vulnerable. While Gold Standard and the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism are identified as best practices, others like the Global Carbon Council lack any mechanism, and standards such as Verra, CAR, ACR, and ART suffer from shortcomings in accessibility, transparency, and independence.